About your Search

20121201
20121231
STATION
MSNBCW 13
LANGUAGE
English 13
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)
by the supreme court could result in the roe v. wade of guy rights. joining me now is political strategist steve elmendorf and chris geithner, senior political reporter for buzz feed. steve, i want to go to you first on this. there has been a lot of discussion and a lot of back and forth whether it's a good thing for marriage equality for the supreme court to take up these issues. some folks think better to leave it at the state level. there has been a lot of progress there. are you bullish or bearish on this? >> i'm bullish. i think the supreme court is going to do the right thing. you know, it's hard to predict, but i think the country has been moving so fast in the right direction. the court is not immune to public opinion. the court is not immune to the wind blowing through the country. and it's so clear where we're moving and the progress we've made in the last five years has been amazing. and i think the court is going to do the right thing. >> chris, let's talk a little bit about public opinion. because we have some polling that shows a breathtaking change of public opinion on this. in 20
. if it did that, that might result in what would essentially be the roe v. wade of gay rights. alex. >> taking up this prop 8 with california, would their ruling necessarily apply then only to california? >> that's possible. it's possible, because the appeals court ruling that comes to the supreme court was designed to apply only to california. what it said is once a state grants an essential right like this, it can't then take it away. remember in 2008 early in the year, this california supreme court permitted same-sex couples to get married, about 18,000 of them did. then prop 8 was passed in the general election putting a stop to it. so if the court just stops there, you're right. it would be a ruling that would apply only to california. if it decides to take that case and get to the constitutional question of whether any state for any reason can deny same-sex marriage couples the right to get married, then it would play nationwide. >> good to see you, pete. thank you. >> you bet. my pleasure. >> now the question of the day. what do you expect the supreme court to do on gay marri
of the same-sex marriage issue, and that could result in what would eventually be the roe v. wade of gay rights. >> we are back on a big story that will become an even bigger story when we move forward, and that's the question of marriage equality for gays and lesbians in the country. speaker gingrich, you oppose same-sex marriage. do you think the tide is turning? we know it's turning in terms of public opinion. what does it mean they are taking this on? >> the justices looked at the question, if you're an american citizen and you are legally married in iowa, what happens if you visit another state and you end up in the hospital? do you have any visitation rights? once this has begun to move, it is going -- it is so complicated that i think the court felt almost compelled as a national institution to look at it. >> and i think, lawrence, as i have talked to lawyers about this, what people need to understand is that there is the question of your ability to have benefits. this is not whether the defense of marriage act is completely thrown out. that is that question. and then prop 8 in ca
. when roe v. wade was decided abortion was legal in only four states. you look at the numbers on gay marriage. 1996 compared to today. in 1996 27% of the country thought gay marriage should be valid. by 2012 it's 50%. as someone who works closely on this issue, what do we owe that almost sea change in public opinion to? >> i think a big -- the recent sea change, i think a lot we owe to president obama, his leadership. i think he particularly, the african-american community, i think his speaking out on this has made a big deal. the other thing i think that's made a big deal is the visibility of gay and lesbian people. the more -- the court is not immune to that. the more people meet gay people as their clerk oorz family members or their friends or neighbors, the more they realize that this notion that they shouldn't be able to get married, which is a deeply conservative institution, the idea that two people can't love each other and get -- be in a stable relationship, which is family values, it's ridiculous. that's why we have people like ted olson who is, you know, a very conservativ
by next summer that is groundbreaking for gay marriage rights as roe v. wade was for abortion in the 1970s, potentially at least after they agreed hear arguments on the defense of marriage act and proposition 8. justice correspondent pete williams joins me. pete, the fact that they took both of these cases, what is the significance from your analysis? >> well, it's the prop 8 case, andrea, that could be the biggy. it could be very narrow. the doma case has a very straight forward question. is it constitutional for a federal law to say that the government will not recognize marriages even when they're legal in the states, so that if married couples get married in the nine states where it's now legal, the federal government doesn't recognize those marriages. there's a question about whether that's unconstitutional discrimination, but if the supreme court does strike down doma, it doesn't say anything about whether the states must permit same-sex marriage, it only says if they do, the federal government must recognize them. so it's the proposition 8 case from california that potentially raise
liberate california or create a gay roe v. wade. s acceptance is only growing. kennedy can only give the gay rights movement a decisive final victory. the train that is the gay rights movement cannot be stopped. gays will continue coming out and demanding rights and suing for equality until they win. because as edie said, marriage matters. the opposition can only build dams to hold off the inevitable tidal wave of justice because we're talking about something fundamental in society, the right to choose your nuclear family without being penalized. the right to have your relationship respected. isn't that what the pursuit of happiness is about? for me the pursuit of happiness though is tossing to martin bashir. >> thank you, toure. and you have stolen some of my time so i'm not going to talk to you. good afternoon. it's monday, december the 10th, and this thing is going to get a whole lot uglier before it gets better. ♪ >> we'd like to announce we have reached an agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff. >> get in a room and make the changes that are needed. >> it sounds like the pre
. and in 1973 when roe v wade was decided, abortion was legal in only four states. given the court's historic inclination to favor expansion of freedoms, even when public opinion is not on its side, it would seem plausible the justices will conform what a majority believe is right and up hold the constitutionality of marriage equality. if this is in fact the result, president obama will guide one of the last remaining civil rights battles to completion. a moment that may come to define his presidency as much as anything he has done to date. similarly on the subject of immigration, president obama has made clear that comprehensive immigration reform will happen in the next four years. stung by rue milluating losses at the polls in november, the gop understands the problems its faces among the young, the brown and the young and brown. the only question is just how long it takes the republican party to come to terms with this. if conservatives are smart they will try to find a seat at the table. less the president and the democratic party secure the votes of every single one of the 11.1 undocume
the women the right guaranteed to them by roe v. wade. even as the new herd presents your fresh faces, it's array of gender and versatility that we in nerdland will take each of you at face value. but will then move on quickly to ask what are your new ideas? at the table, matt welch is editor in chief of reason. editor in reason of chief magazine and the co-author of declaration of independence. conservative writer tara wall was a senior media adviser for. an associate professor of science at columbia university. a fellow at the roosevelt institute and manuel reyes. thanks for having you here. it's nice to have you. >>> tara, welcome to nerdland. >> how did i know you were coming to me first. >> now i would like you to explain your party. >> lay it all on the table. >> in a certain way, it's so early, i feel silly talking about it. but i do think it's important that we not sort of come out of a win as i've seen both parties do in midterm elections or general elections with this narrative, oh, the other party is over. this is the decisive election. i don't think we see anything like that.
of the same-sex marriage issue. that might result in what would essentially be the roe v. wade of gay rights. >> thanks for that. >>> back to you, molly. you were doing a big piece of this for "the atlantic" for next week. what did you find most interesting in your research thus far? >> the really amazing thing about this issue is how far public opinion has come in a relatively short time on the scale of sort of large-scale social change. when gallup recently polled public opinion on gay marriage, it had the support of 53% of the american public. back in 1996 that was 27%. and that was the atmosphere in which president clinton and the congress were passing the defense of marriage act. since then, every single appellate court that has considered it has ruled against it. that's something that advocates feel very confident about the supreme court going their way. on the proposition 8 case, advocates are a little bit more nervous. this is a conservative court. and if they do rule against proposition 8 and gay marriage in california, that would strike a blow against gay marriage that could last f
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)